From the article:
On the radio show Kirlin explained his shock when the land on which he's paid taxes of about $16,000 a year, plus $65 per month homeowner association dues, on which he's sprayed for weeds and repaired fences, suddenly was made unusable by Klein's decision.
How did you come the conclusion that these folks ignored their property?
If they belonged to and paid dues to a HA you can bet there were rules about the appearance of the property and they were there often enough to maintain it and void any of this adverse possession nonsense.
I didn't. I came to no conclusions at all, because I wasn't at the trial and did not have an opportunity to hear the evidence presented, and particularly because I did not have the opportunity to determine the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. Therefore, I am only advising that it is never a good idea to express outrage over the outcome of a case without hearing both sides of the story, which the article does not present. That's all.
I was a judge in various courts for fifteen years. I've seen many, many people manufacture evidence and lie through their teeth. I remember one case where the facts as presented by both sides were completely incompatible and absolutely untrustworthy. My decision began, "If there be a ton of evidence in this case, there is, at most, an ounce of truth."
So all I'm saying is, "Be careful." This could indeed be an outrageous result, or it could be absolutely correct. We don't know. We weren't there. Be at least a little skeptical.